Prisoners released in error

How are prisoners released from prison?

HM Prison and Probation Service’s (HMPPS) Prison discharge policy sets out the rules and guidance that prison staff must follow when a prisoner is being discharged (released) from prison at the end of their sentence.

To ensure that it is “correct to discharge the prisoner”, prison staff are required to, among other things, check:

• the prisoner’s identity by checking their name, date of birth, signature, photograph, tattoos and scars, and biometric data,
• that HMPPS has received the documents giving the releasing authority of the Parole Board or the Justice Secretary,
• that the prisoner is not subject to an outstanding recall from a previous sentence,
• that there are no deportation orders, and
• that there are no other reasons to keep a prisoner in custody.

How common are releases in error?

A prisoner is released in error if they are “released when they should otherwise have remained in HMPPS custody and the prisoner or a third party has not deliberately played a part in the error.”

In the year ending March 2026, 179 prisoners were released in error from prisons and courts in England and Wales.

This was a 31% decrease on the 262 prisoners who were released in error in the year ending March 2025. The number of prisoners who were released in error in the year ending March 2025 was the highest number on record and a 128% increase on those released in error in the year ending March 2024.

Data on the number of prisoners correctly released from prison in the year ending March 2026 has not yet been released. However, the number of prisoners released in error in the year ending March 2026 was equivalent to 0.31% of the 57,000 prisoners correctly released from prison in the year ending March 2025.

Some prisoners released in error have attracted public attention, including:

• the release in error of Hadush Kebata in October 2025, an asylum seeker who was serving a 12-month prison sentence for sexual assault. He was apprehended by the police 48 hours later and was deported,
• the release in error of Billy Smith in November 2025, who was serving a 45-month prison sentence for multiple fraud offences. He handed himself in to the police three days later and was returned to prison, and
• the release in error of Brahim Kaddour-Cherif in November 2025, a sex offender who was in custody awaiting trial for burglary. He was apprehended by the police nine days later and was returned to prison.

The Prison Governors’ Association has stated that releases in error are “neither rare nor hidden” and “have occurred under every government’s watch.” (PDF) However, releases in error increased significantly between 2022/23 and 2025/26.

The table below shows the number of prisoners released in error since 2006/07:

Why are releases in error increasing? Systemic pressures

Dame Lynne Owens, a former Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and former Director General of the National Crime Agency, who was asked by the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, to conduct an independent investigation into the rise of releases in error, has stated that releases in error are “simply one symptom of a broken system” caused by “a lack of strategic vision and coherent policy choices, with the necessary funding.”

The Justice Secretary has stated that releases in error are a “symptom of the system that we inherited from the Conservatives” with “prisons full” and “reeling from historic funding reductions: a 24% real-terms cut between 2010 and 2015, and 30% cuts in staffing”.

The chair of the Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter, has said that the justice system “is at breaking point” and that releases in error will continue until underlying issues are addressed:

Evidence taken by the Justice Committee has laid bare a crisis-hit prison system, starved of investment over many years which is facing multi-faceted pressures, including overcrowding and understaffing within a decaying prison estate characterised by chaos and instability.

While the day to day running of prison security and public safety are paramount, the current spate of releases in error will be repeated until the underlying failures are addressed.

Changes to sentencing and the introduction of an early release scheme

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says the rise in the number of prisoners released in error is linked to HMPPS having to “digest and implement a range of operational and legislative changes”, including a large-scale early release scheme due to prison overcrowding.

HMPPS states that initial issues surrounding eligibility for the scheme contributed to the rise in releases in error in the year ending March 2025.

Dame Lynne Owens has also stated that a “complex and changing sentencing regime” coupled with prison staff having to “frequently grapple with the implementation of new policies, whilst simultaneously delivering capacity management measures […] comes with higher propensity for errors” and is likely to have contributed to the rise in the number of prisoners released in error.

Lack of technology

The Prisons Minister, Lord Timpson, has stated that the “lack of investment in digital technology” in prisons has contributed to the errors, as prison staff have to use “boxes of paperwork” to work out release dates.

Dame Lynne Owens also stated that prisons still “rely heavily on outdated technology […] paper processes […] and multiple disconnected data management systems” which can make calculating release dates “time consuming, inconsistently completed and vulnerable to error.”

Inexperienced prison staff

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, has suggested that the number of “very inexperienced” people working in prisons with large caseloads and limited training has also contributed to the errors. In November 2025, the Justice Secretary stated that over 50% of frontline prison officers have less than five years’ experience.

Working arrangements between courts and prisons

Dame Lynne Owens has also stated that a “problematic working model between courts and prisons” is likely to have contributed to a rise in the number of prisoners released in error.

Dame Lynne has said that “insensible working arrangements between courts and prisons” such as poor communication, divergent working patterns and disconnected technology systems, which makes accurate information sharing harder, are “driving errors in a pressurised operational context” such as misinterpreting court orders or miscalculating release dates.

Action taken by the government in 2025

In October 2025, the Justice Secretary announced several new policies aimed at reducing the number of prisoners released in error.

New release checks

The Justice Secretary announced new measures to strengthen release checks with “more direct senior accountability for ensuring that protocols and checks are correctly applied, including a clear checklist for governors to determine that every step has been followed before any release takes place”.

The new measures also require a duty governor to be “physically present for the release of any foreign criminal who is being removed from prison early to be immediately deported”.

The Justice Secretary said these were “the strongest release checks that have ever been in place”.

Independent investigation

The Justice Secretary also announced that an independent investigation into Hadush Kebatu’s release and the rise of releases in error would be chaired by Dame Lynne Owens, a former Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and former Director General of the National Crime Agency.

The Justice Secretary said the investigation would “get to the bottom of what happened and stop similar unacceptable mistakes in future”, including looking at historic cases, release protocols, staff experience and resources.

Dame Lynne reported back to the Justice Secretary on 27 February 2026. The findings of her report and her recommendations were published on 15 April 2026 and are set out below.

Warrant queries unit

The Justice Secretary also announced that a new warrant queries unit, staffed by court officials, would be established so prison staff can “escalate queries and get rapid clarifications to reduce the risk of releases in error that emanate from the court system”. Between 2 December 2025 and 15 April 2026, the unit supported prisons with over 1,000 warrant queries.

Upgrading technology

The Justice Secretary also announced that the government would spend up to £10 million by March 2026 on “the roll out of new AI-powered tools” in prisons to accelerate “upgrades to the archaic paper-based systems” so that staff can “accurately calculate sentences”.

In April 2026, the Justice Secretary stated that these tools – including a tool that “automatically extracts key information and ensures it reaches the right prison promptly” - are being rolled out across the prison estate and will “reduce the main causes of releases in error.”

Justice Performance Board

The Justice Secretary also announced the creation of a new Justice Performance Board, which meets monthly and brings together ministers and senior officials in the MoJ to provide a “greater oversight of the system and drive improvements in prisons and criminal courts, laser-focussed on addressing key metrics including releases in error.”

Dame Lynne Owens’ Independent Review into Releases in Error

Dame Lynne Owens’ Independent Review into Releases in Error was published on 15 April 2026.

Findings

In addition to providing a detailed analysis of Hadush Kebatu’s release in error, Dame Lynne stated that releases in error are “simply one symptom of a broken system” caused by “a lack of strategic vision and coherent policy choices, with the necessary funding.”

Dame Lynne also stated that releases in error have “serious and far‑reaching impacts” including “retraumatising victims and families and undermining trust in the criminal justice system” as well as placing “acute strain” on the police.

Dame Lynne found that there are four ‘types of error’ associated with early releases:

1. Sentence miscalculation: Cases where the release date for an individual has been miscalculated,
2. Missed information: Cases where necessary information has not been sent or received by the relevant parties – for example, an email being missed or a warrant not being received,
3. Incorrect outcome: Cases where an incorrect outcome for an individual was recorded for an offence. For example, where bail has been recorded rather than remand, and
4. Mistaken identity: Cases where an individual has been released in error due to mistaken identity – for example, because two individuals share the same name or because an alias has been overlooked or names spelt variously/incorrectly.

Dame Lynne also identified three overarching drivers of releases in error:

• level issues with the process, guidance or checks in place, such as issues with technology or IT systems or more substantial breakdowns in processes,
• human-level issues or oversight, including processes not being followed correctly, incorrect information being uploaded onto a system or emails being received but not read, and
• staffing or resourcing issues, including periods of unusual or unexpected high demand, periods of low staffing or a lack of suitable knowledge or training.

Dame Lynne also identified wider systemic factors that she stated are “almost certain to be increasing the risk of releases in error”, including:

• a decline in the number of experienced staff,
• insufficient training for staff,
• a lack of technology and tools available for prison staff, and
• an absence of reliable and consistent data about releases in error.

Recommendations

Dame Lynne made 33 recommendations aimed at reducing releases in error. The recommendations spanned the following areas:

• data and digital,
• governance,
• system and process,
• policy and procedure, and
• training and culture.

While Dame Lynne stated that all of her recommendations were important, she urged the government to have a “precise and determined strategic focus” on ten of her recommendations, including:

• Recommendation 2: HMPPS and the MoJ should urgently explore and agree a route to professionalise the investigation process into releases in error, either through an extension of the Anti-Corruption Command within HMPPS or through the Prisons Ombudsman or the Independent Office of Police Conduct,
• Recommendation 10: The MoJ and the Home Office should urgently talk with victims and the victims’ sector to develop a clear policy and protocol on how and when victims should be contacted about releases in error,
• Recommendation 14: The MoJ should work with the Judicial Office to explore options for agreeing standardisation of days, weeks, months (consistently either 28 days, 30 days or 31 days), and years (52 weeks) to simplify sentence calculations and to explore the feasibility of judges setting out the release date at the point of sentencing,
• Recommendation 15: The MoJ with HMPPS and HMCTS should develop a shared target operating model for working together, including on communicating sentences and sharing critical information,
• Recommendation 17: The government should develop a cross-agency strategy for the criminal justice system, including a technology and data strategy that makes substantial and connected changes to the current technology provisions that creates an interface that links the court system for recording sentences to prisons systems,
• Recommendation 19: The MoJ and Home Office should develop a plan for the consistent use of biometrics, both in prison and across the whole system, so that offenders can be tracked from the point of arrest to release, to ensure that that the correct individual is being released,
• Recommendation 26: The MoJ, HMPPS and the Office for National Statistics should work to ensure that data on releases in error is reliable and assured, including whether ongoing investment is required to improve the quality of data collection, and
• Recommendation 33: HMPPS and the MoJ should undertake a systematic review of all culture related recommendations (both in this review and others) to assess whether they are delivering the intended improvements.

Government response to Dame Lynne Owens’ Independent Review into Releases in Error

The government published its response to Dame Lynne Owens’ Independent Review into Releases in Error on 15 April 2026.

The Justice Secretary stated that Dame Lynne’s review had confirmed that releases in error were a consequence of “fourteen years of austerity, staffing cuts, failure to build prison places, and underinvestment in digital infrastructure” which had resulted in a justice system “pushed to breaking point.”

The Justice Secretary said he had accepted Dame Lynne’s recommendations “for any changes covered by this Spending Review period” and was investing £82 million to deliver these recommendations.

The Justice Secretary also stated that he was “committed to all remaining recommendations, subject to future funding decisions.”

The Justice Secretary grouped Dame Lynne’s recommendations into the following three main themes:

• improving communication with victims when a release in erroroccurs,
• modernising systems through digitalisation and harnessing AI tools to reduce error and improve reliability, and
• simplification of processes across courts and prisons to reduce the risk of sentence calculations.

The Justice Secretary stated that it was his aim to “bring releases in error back down to pre-prison capacity crisis level” and he set out how the government would deliver on Dame Lynne’s recommendations in the immediate term, short term and medium to long term.

Immediate term

The Justice Secretary announced that in the immediate term, the government would:

• simplify complex processes across the justice system,
• spend £8 million to improve manual checks in Crown and Magistrate Courts, including the recruitment of an additional 90 Crown Court clerks and 75 administrative staff in Magistrates’ Courts,
• improve information sharing between HMCTS and HMPPS systems, including through the joint HMCTS–MoJ digital delivery team which was established in November 2025,
• revise operational guidance and invest in increased training for prison staff, and
• extend the use of mandatory body worn cameras to alluniformed prison staff that work with prisoners and in the discharge process.

Short term

The Justice Secretary announced that in the short term, the government would:

• invest up to £20m in the 2026/2027 financial year for the digitalisation of processes that underpin manual sentence calculations, including a new ‘Calculate Release Dates Service’ to automate released date calculations,
• work with the victims’ sector to improve communication with victims in the event of a mistaken release, and
• strengthen system-wide data collection and information-sharing.

Medium to long term

The Justice Secretary announced that in the medium to long term, the government would:

• invest up to £50 million in the creation of a new digital ID system called Justice ID so that individuals entering the criminal justice system are given a single digital identity that enables them to be tracked from “arrest, through the courts, into custody and back into the community.” The government state that this will be a “major transformation” and will address human error and ensure that the correct individuals are released,
• explore how biometrics, such as fingerprints and facial scans, could be used in the prison system and by Justice ID. The government has stated that it will be rolling out fingerprint and facial recognition trials in prisons within six months, and that they expect a full rollout of biometrics across prisons before the end of the current Parliament (2029),
• develop a plan to phase out the use of paper records in prisons, and
• work with the Office for National Statistics to improve data collection and publication surround releases in error.

Stakeholders’ reaction

The chief executive of the charity, the Prison Reform Trust, Pia Sinha, has said that it is “right” that the government has accepted Dame Lynne Owen’s recommendations but has urged the government to go further in addressing staffing issues in prisons:

As Dame Lynne Owen’s comprehensive report reveals […] chronic under‑resourcing, high staff turnover, the loss of experienced sentence‑calculation specialists, fragmented IT systems, and an ever‑growing complexity of release rules have created conditions in which serious errors are far more likely.

Our prisons remain in crisis, and there is no quick fix. It is therefore right that the government has accepted Dame Lynne’s findings and is moving swiftly to strengthen training, support and oversight for frontline staff. But lasting progress will depend on whether prisons are given sufficient, experienced staff with the time, tools and confidence to calculate sentences accurately. New systems and simpler rules will help, but unless staffing pressures are resolved, the system will remain vulnerable to further errors in future.

The chair of the Prison Officers’ Association, Mark Fairhurst, has called the government’s response to Dame Lynne’s investigation “welcome, much needed reforms” but warned that “you’re never going to totally eradicate human error.”

The chief executive of the social justice charity Nacro, Enver Solomon, has said that while the government’s plan to upgrade technology in prisons was welcome, that further changes would also be needed:

There is no getting away from the fact that the prison system remains in a serious crisis so unless there are sustained improvements in not just technology but also training, ways of working and organisational culture, lasting change will not be possible and there will continue to be too many failures. Systemic reform must be a clear priority to prevent more releases in error.

The chief executive officer of the charity Victim Support, Katie Kempen, stated that Dame Lynne Owens’ independent review had highlighted how “flawed the system for calculating release dates is” and how “victims are left suffering the retraumatising effects of a criminal justice system on its knees.”

The general secretary of the Criminal Justice Workers Union, Mike Rolfe, has called the new prisoner release checks “another layer of bureaucracy that doesn’t actually solve the problem” and has urged the government to focus on “why people don’t want to work in prisons anymore and why the service is falling apart”.

The Prison Governors’ Association has stated that the government needs to “focus attention on the wider and worsening conditions across our prison estate” (PDF):

Our members […] continue to do their utmost to keep the prison system afloat. At times, it feels like this is against all odds and despite the limited contribution from successive governments to properly enable and resource the service the public rightly expects.

Our commitment remains clear: we will work with any political party or government willing to find meaningful solutions to improve conditions in our prisons. […] But while political parties showboat and grandstand, the real risk to the public is not being effectively managed.